Genetics, environment, experiences, etc. determine options. Our discussion in here is not about options but how do we act in a situation since we accept that options are available.

Based off of preference.

Value of the "greater good", one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something "new", the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.

By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

I am not talking about identical bags. I am talking about two different options which are just equally liked. Think of a situation that you want to buy ice cream and you like chocolate and vanilla ice cream equally. Can you choose one of the ice cream? Of course you can. What I am arguing is that a deterministic system cannot resolve such a situation and halts permanently. You also halt in such a situation temporarily but you eventually pick up one of the ice cream. So you are not a deterministic system and instead free.

Just because you like two items the same does not halt determinism and make you free. Just the quandary over which item to choose is also part of the deterministic process which is beyond control.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Value of the "greater good", one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something "new", the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.

By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

I am not talking about identical bags. I am talking about two different options which are just equally liked. Think of a situation that you want to buy ice cream and you like chocolate and vanilla ice cream equally. Can you choose one of the ice cream? Of course you can. What I am arguing is that a deterministic system cannot resolve such a situation and halts permanently. You also halt in such a situation temporarily but you eventually pick up one of the ice cream. So you are not a deterministic system and instead free.

Is that not dependent upon mood or belief of what could be the "right" choice of which one will return a greater satisfaction?

When I am picking between donuts or cookies (I love both) I take into account what mood I am in, not so much a struggle of not being able to choose due to liking them both equally. Or how about how I love Italian food but also love Mexican food, mood plays a role in determining which one we choose and which will be "more fulfilling" based on what makes one salivate more in the present moment.[/quote] You might be in a mood to have cookies but think that it makes you fat so you believe that it is better to go with donuts. You want both options equally at the end when you consider all circumstances. This is a situation that mood or belief alone cannot move you to pick up the option you want so you have to decide freely.[/quote]

Peacegirl: Mood or belief are not necessarily the only driving force that determines preference. One of your reasons for not eating the cookies (although they’re your favorite) is because your little sister loves them too and there’s only one left, so it gives you greater satisfaction to save the cookie for her rather than eat it yourself. There is no free choice even when we are choosing between items that would both be satisfying.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

It's to an extent, it has limits if anything. Will is never free, why we must practice using it, to make the /right/ choices, otherwise we end up regretting sometimes. If it is at all limited then it is not free, it is on multiple levels, I don't see how it isn't.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's a pitiful thing to see so few people who have ever met a free man, or who are free themselves.

Those that have never tasted freedom in their lives, are so desperate for it, obviously... (the op)

No such thing as full fledged freedom, we are servants of the subconscious through micro to macro, it's that simple to be honest. One works to live otherwise they die, that isn't freedom. That's a wall. Choice is limited.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

bahman wrote:Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

I see people procrastinate decisions until they can no longer make one all the time. Until we get 'like' meters, I will assume that those who choose, preferred one option, and those who didn't had the exact balance of fears and desires and couldn't move. LOL.

Mistress or wife. Oh, I choose both says man X.Or he keeps putting off deciding, then has a heart attack at 40-

Some people roll dice when torn.

Anyway, there are always third options.

I find it hard to believe that with complicated creatures like us it happens more than once in a hundred lifetimes that the actual levels of desire are absolutely equal.

bahman wrote:Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

I see people procrastinate decisions until they can no longer make one all the time. Until we get 'like' meters, I will assume that those who choose, preferred one option, and those who didn't had the exact balance of fears and desires and couldn't move. LOL.

Mistress or wife. Oh, I choose both says man X.Or he keeps putting off deciding, then has a heart attack at 40-

Some people roll dice when torn.

Anyway, there are always third options.

I find it hard to believe that with complicated creatures like us it happens more than once in a hundred lifetimes that the actual levels of desire are absolutely equal.

In fact I think that idea is funny.

And still the situation often halts.

"Not choosing" is also a choice. It's the third option in the given example.

Artimas wrote:It's to an extent, it has limits if anything. Will is never free, why we must practice using it, to make the /right/ choices, otherwise we end up regretting sometimes. If it is at all limited then it is not free, it is on multiple levels, I don't see how it isn't.

My hope is that we could beyond the debate over free will. We don’t have free will but that does not mean prior events are responsible for our choices, as the standard definition of determinism often implies. That’s inaccurate which creates a false dichotomy and why compatibilism came about, which is also inaccurate. I tried to explain the reason man does not have free will, according to the author of Decline and Fall of All Evil. His definition is spot on. I understand that it’s unusual for someone to actually come online and make serious claims, but that’s exactly what I’m doing, which is why I titled this thread as I did.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

phyllo wrote:"Not choosing" is also a choice. It's the third option in the given example.

Well, sure. I was pointing out the absurdity of his argument. This equibalanced human who simply stops, like a robot in an old film faced with a paradox. And not choosing does nto mean there likes were equal. It could mean anything.

But his post seemed to be arguing that we always choose and this shows that even with equal desires we can still choose. But there is no way to know this. Perhaps when we choose between to options it shows that we had a preference for one that was stronger. When we don't it shows that we have a determined default not to choose but to go and do other things.

His scenario is impossible to show actually exists and does nto contradict determinism.

peacegirl wrote:I origianally created a thread on determinism but it has brought everything in but the kitchen sink. I am here to state with absolute knowledge and conviction that man’s will is not free.

If you really believe you are not free, then you should also realize that there would be no way for you to know if your reasons for thinking you are are 1) rational 2) univerally applicable. You might simply be compelled to think your arguments made sense and applied also to other people by qualia.

bahman wrote:Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

I see people procrastinate decisions until they can no longer make one all the time. Until we get 'like' meters, I will assume that those who choose, preferred one option, and those who didn't had the exact balance of fears and desires and couldn't move. LOL.

Mistress or wife. Oh, I choose both says man X.Or he keeps putting off deciding, then has a heart attack at 40-

Some people roll dice when torn.

Anyway, there are always third options.

I find it hard to believe that with complicated creatures like us it happens more than once in a hundred lifetimes that the actual levels of desire are absolutely equal.

In fact I think that idea is funny.

And still the situation often halts.

Some people roll dice because that is an aspect to their personality, not because they have the freedom of choice to do so.. we’re bound by who we are and I wouldn’t have it any other way. What we learn shapes our picking. We only have freedom to pick from the choices available based on preference/personality, we don’t get any and every choice, which does that not inhibit what “freedom” means? If someone rolls a dice they let the dice pick for them, that’s not free will, it is just another method of making a choice based off of belief and randomness. There is a difference between having no freedom at all and being able to shape yourself freely and fully, we're caught in the middle just like we are with chaos and order, existence is the balancing of duality. For the most part we pick what is to our greater satisfaction, if one does not make a choice is that too not apart of their personality? That’s a form of pessimism, not choosing in fear of making the “wrong” choice. If these weren’t traits of personality, decision making and being then why have, opportunists, realists, pessimists and optimists?

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

bahman wrote:Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

I see people procrastinate decisions until they can no longer make one all the time. Until we get 'like' meters, I will assume that those who choose, preferred one option, and those who didn't had the exact balance of fears and desires and couldn't move. LOL.

Mistress or wife. Oh, I choose both says man X.Or he keeps putting off deciding, then has a heart attack at 40-

Some people roll dice when torn.

Anyway, there are always third options.

I find it hard to believe that with complicated creatures like us it happens more than once in a hundred lifetimes that the actual levels of desire are absolutely equal.

In fact I think that idea is funny.

And still the situation often halts.

Some people roll dice because that is an aspect to their personality, not because they have the freedom of choice to do so..

It seems like you are arguing against free will. I was arguing against a specific argument against determinism. ARe you disagreeing with me or supportingme?

we’re bound by who we are and I wouldn’t have it any other way. What we learn shapes our picking. We only have freedom to pick from the choices available based on preference/personality, we don’t get any and every choice, which does that not inhibit what “freedom” means? If someone rolls a dice they let the dice pick for them, that’s not free will, it is just another method of making a choice based off of belief and randomness. There is a difference between having no freedom at all and being able to shape yourself freely and fully, we're caught in the middle just like we are with chaos and order, existence is the balancing of duality. For the most part we pick what is to our greater satisfaction, if one does not make a choice is that too not apart of their personality? That’s a form of pessimism, not choosing in fear of making the “wrong” choice. If these weren’t traits of personality, decision making and being then why have, opportunists, realists, pessimists and optimists?

As far as I can tell you are disagreeing with the person I was disagreeing with. Not exactly the same way I was, but what you are saying does not contradict what I wrote.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's a pitiful thing to see so few people who have ever met a free man, or who are free themselves.

Those that have never tasted freedom in their lives, are so desperate for it, obviously... (the op)

You are misappropriating the definition of “free” in this context. No one is saying that it isn’t better to have more choices. Regardless of having very few choices available to you, or 100 choices, does not negate the direction you must travel which, based on your heredity and environment, COMPELS you to choose the best possible option of the choices under consideration.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:I origianally created a thread on determinism but it has brought everything in but the kitchen sink. I am here to state with absolute knowledge and conviction that man’s will is not free.

If you really believe you are not free, then you should also realize that there would be no way for you to know if your reasons for thinking you are are 1) rational 2) univerally applicoable. You might simply be compelled to think your arguments made sense and applied also to other people by qualia.

Regardless of the perception for believing in free will it is a superficial feeling yet our entire justice system is based on the belief that we could have done otherwise. Once it is recognized by science that man does not have free will (which is already occurring) we need to follow this truth to see wherever it leads, which this author has done. That’s what this discovery is about. Through the extension of the knowledge that man has no free will and is therefore not to blame, we are able to make leaps and bounds in progress as it relates to war, crime, conflicting goods, politics, government, and poverty worldwide.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

I feel it is mainly just a mis-use of semantics to be honest. It's like a house, we're "free" to go into our bedroom sure, the house is the way it is due to personality, we pick based off personality and satisfaction, the house is our limited choice in which room we may sleep in, can you go over to your neighbors house and sleep in his room? Without a consequence? A (lower satisfaction), so if so bound by choice in multiple aspects, where does "free" come into play? You decide to sleep on your couch versus your bed, why? A preference.

Last edited by Artimas on Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:As far as I can tell you are disagreeing with the person I was disagreeing with. Not exactly the same way I was, but what you are saying does not contradict what I wrote.

Ultimately I am on the side of a will not being free, but still having a will to choose based on preference. Just one bound to unique diversity of being, being stemming from environment, genetics and what is or what was.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's a pitiful thing to see so few people who have ever met a free man, or who are free themselves.

Those that have never tasted freedom in their lives, are so desperate for it, obviously... (the op)

You are misappropriating the definition of “free” in this context. No one is saying that it isn’t better to have more choices. Regardless of having very few choices available to you, or 100 choices, does not negate the direction you must travel which, based on your heredity and environment, COMPELS you to choose the best possible option of the choices under consideration.

And that ''best' choice brings in the obvious conflict between objective/subjective criteria, as a method of differentiating the preformance with the performance.In fact, the choice it'self presents the very basis of the arguability of determination. The best choice may not be on a level course, for that reason, infecting the plane of argument with the reasoning of the choice.

Here the best choice can only be thought in terms of what is reasonable, what is available, even of performance which can not adequately adequately be divorced from the preformance.

For these reasons and for other issues of affordability, capacity , the -best choice may never be completely gotten at, and here I so agree with Iambig's arguments.

Usually freedom is merely an assertion, such as, 'at the time, I thought it was the beat option' But, does that take away freedom in a general sense, even if the apparent and objective notion of it have not been differentiated?

Therefore heredity and the environment can not be interpreted asin inter/interpersonal indexe in appraising the continuum of freedom, determination and validation.

For instance the abandonment of drastic psychiatric methods such as psycho-surgery, reduced to chemically induced drugging ; invalidated psychoanalysis on the political ground by 'democratic shifts', wherein, the methodology has contributed to the entropic nature of that political shift.

Philosophy itself has reacted to the psychological diffusion, by the phenenological reductive epoche, seeking an eidectic transcendental reduction.

Can freedom be found in a assumptiveepoche of existential despair per and through role playing and gesturing? Seeing Zizek lecture, such an affect may be inferred. Does the modern philosophy not.convey this sense for the sensible? And revert, perhaps with undo, but understandable ostentation to a performative transcendance?

I think the notion of a psychology of.philosophy is apt here, this being a philosophy forum, and is applicable.

Last edited by Meno_ on Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:As far as I can tell you are disagreeing with the person I was disagreeing with. Not exactly the same way I was, but what you are saying does not contradict what I wrote.

Ultimately I am on the side of a will not being free, but still having a will to choose based on preference. Just one bound to unique diversity of being, being stemming from environment, genetics and what is or what was.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:As far as I can tell you are disagreeing with the person I was disagreeing with. Not exactly the same way I was, but what you are saying does not contradict what I wrote.

Ultimately I am on the side of a will not being free, but still having a will to choose based on preference. Just one bound to unique diversity of being, being stemming from environment, genetics and what is or what was.

That’s correct! We are bound by our genetics and environment (which is very diverse) pushing us in the direction of greater satisfaction. That does not mean we are always satisfied by the limited options we have been given. Right now, I am just trying to establish the invariable law that man’s will is not free since we are never given a “free” choice. If people can accept the undeniable proof given by this author, even temporarily, I can move forward to show why this knowledge matters.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:That’s correct! We are bound by our genetics and environment (which is very diverse) pushing us in the direction of greater satisfaction. That does not mean we are always satisfied by the limited options we have been given. Right now, Im just trying to establish why man’s will is not free since, based on our life situation and genetics, we are never given a free choice. If people can accept the explanation given, even temporarily, I can move forward to show why this knowledge matters.

Well I am open for new ideas of why, when, how, what, who and where for near if not all things involving wisdom to fill in more holes, correlate things further.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

That’s correct! We are bound by our genetics and environment (which is very diverse) pushing us in the direction of greater satisfaction. That does not mean we are always satisfied by the limited options we have been given. Right now, I am just trying to establish the invariable law that man’s will is not free since we are never given a “free” choice. If people can accept the undeniable proof given by this author, even temporarily, I can move forward to show why this knowledge matters.------------------

Peace girl:

By primarily trying to establish inner/outer balance, will reduce the negatively determining factors, which methodically do not override the description of how this may happen.Man is and never was absolutely determined , his dreams as an unconscious measure do appear to form cohesive and compatible faith for more participation in his life, that he may will this in the future as well.

peacegirl wrote:That’s correct! We are bound by our genetics and environment (which is very diverse) pushing us in the direction of greater satisfaction. That does not mean we are always satisfied by the limited options we have been given. Right now, Im just trying to establish why man’s will is not free since, based on our life situation and genetics, we are never given a free choice. If people can accept the explanation given, even temporarily, I can move forward to show why this knowledge matters.

Well I am open for new ideas of why, when, how, what, who and where for near if not all things involving wisdom to fill in more holes, correlate things further.

It’s disturbing to me that people who claim to be truth seekers refuse to read the first three chapters of the book. I understand that it’s difficult to decipher the genuine from the fraudulent but that should not be a reason to close one’s mind. It also amazes me how some people have criticized the writing style which has nothing to do with the accuracy of the content. Talk about discouraging. This discovery was made in 1959 and has never been given a careful analysis.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Meno_ wrote:That’s correct! We are bound by our genetics and environment (which is very diverse) pushing us in the direction of greater satisfaction. That does not mean we are always satisfied by the limited options we have been given. Right now, I am just trying to establish the invariable law that man’s will is not free since we are never given a “free” choice. If people can accept the undeniable proof given by this author, even temporarily, I can move forward to show why this knowledge matters.------------------

Peace girl:

By primarily trying to establish inner/outer balance, will reduce the negatively determining factors, which methodically do not override the description of how this may happen.Man is and never was absolutely determined , his dreams as an unconscious measure do appear to form cohesive and compatible faith for more participation in his life, that he may will this in the future as well.

As the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, is extended, the choice between two or more goods rather than the lesser of two or more evils will be readily available to everyone without anyone being hurt as a result of this fantastic change.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)